Epstein Secrets

also United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218, 1221 (2d Cir. 1976). "Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury." Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 362 (1973). "A question is fundamentally ambiguous when it is not a phrase with a meaning about which men of ordina

2012), is instructive: Succinctly, the prosecutor did not fulfill her obligation to "pin the witness down to the specific object of [her] inquiry." Bronston, 409 U.S. at 360. Any number of straightforward follow-up questions could have clarified the object of inquiry. For example, in addition to the "at

6 III. The Questions and Answers Were Immaterial 10 CONCLUSION 10 Certificate of Service 12 i EFTA00097379 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 6, 7, 10 v. Maxwell, 325 F. Supp. 3d 428 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) 1 United States v. Bonacorsa, 528 F.2d 1218 (2d C

lly" making false statements to any department or agency of the United States. In affirming the district court's decision to dismiss the indictment, the Eleventh Circuit stated: Although the single statements "Record of traffic convictions," or "Record of other convictions" may not be ambiguous standing alone, they

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 145 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 110 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 53 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 181 Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 C

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 145 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 110 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 53 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 181 Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 C

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 145 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 110 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 53 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 181 Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 C

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

ates, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 101 iv EFTA00095071 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 78 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 38 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 121 Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) 101 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 37 C

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 145 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 110 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 53 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 181 Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) 147 Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124 (2008) 51 C

rt to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of- federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23- 25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no a

ptVery, and I aleiutra CM to man bur acta. laiOmaa ra-Yn3 b Ps= Nano, ..aswa lawn of area. OF pHs (1•111".. Ma I. L i n G. yae ri I (Yin Ur. Bosto MA 02116 - 6'17 227 3700 IMIMI ~ten IN• /alma paaaa walla mom isaamotortymmuenmeniernmmee am ~me/Yak cvd ww ~ant &UaG.Sala 562a4)(2) • etaa

ur Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of